UC-NRLF 


*^1 


Mysel 


SB    13    77D 


M 


9m 


W 


, 


m 


.&& 


: 


LIBRARY 

OF  THE 

University  of  California. 


GIFT  OF 


^  C/ass      l^^x- 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  with  funding  from 

Microsoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/diochrysostomashOOmontrich 


DIO  CHRYSOSTOM 


AS 


A    HOMERIC    CRITIC. 


A   DISSERTATION 

PRESENTED  TO  THE  BOARD  OF  UNIVERSITY  STUDIES 

OF  THE  JOHNS  HOPKINS  UNIVERSITY  FOR  THE 

DEGREE  OF  DOCTOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY, 

FEBRUARY,   1899. 


BY 


WALTER  ALEXANDER   MONTGOMERY. 


UNIVERSITY 


BALTIMORE 

JOHN    MURPHY    COMPANY 

1901 


INDEX. 


Page. 

Introduction 7-8 

I.    Dio's  Sophistic  Criticism  of  Homer 8-23 

II.    Dio's  Aesthetic  Criticism  of  Homer 23-27 

III.    Dio's  Ethical  Criticism  of  Homer 28-33 

A.  Homer's  Personality 28 

B.  Homer  as  the  Conscious  Ethical  Teacher 28 


BIBLIOGRAPHY. 


Editions  of  Dio  Chrysostomos. 

1.  Emperius,  A. — Dionis  Chrysostomi  Opera.     Brunsvigae,  1844.     (2  vols.) 

2.  Dindorf,  L. — Dionis  Chrysostomi  Orationes.     Leipzig,  1857.      (2  vols.) 

3.  Von  Arnim,  J. — Dionis  Prusaensis,  quem  vocant  Chrysostomum,  omnia. 

Berlin,  1896.     (2  vols.) 

Scholia. 

1.  Scholia  Graeca  in  Homeri  Iliadem.     Oxon.,  1875  (Dindorf,  G. ). 

2.  Scholia  Graeca  in  Homeri  Odysseam  (Oxon.,  1855). 

3.  Porphyrii  Quaestionum  Homericarum  ad  Iliadem  pertinentium  Beliquae. 

Leipzig,   1880  (Schroder,  H.). 

4.    ad  Odysseam  ( 1 890 ) . 

Dissertations. 

1.  Sengebusch,  M. — Homerica  Dissertatio  Prior.     Leipzig,  1870. 

2.  Hagen,  P. — Quaestiones  Dioneae.     Kiel,  1887. 

3.  Schmid,  W.—  Atticismus.     Stuttgart,  1887  (vol.  I,  pp.  72-191). 

4.  Mahn,  A. — De  Dionis  Chrysostomi  Codicibus.     Halle,  1889. 

5.  Clausen,  W.— De  Dionis  Chrysostomi  Bithynicis  quae  vocantur  orationibus 

quaestiones.     Kiel,  1895. 

6.  Bruns,  I. — De  Dione  Chrysostomo  et  Aristotele  Critica  et  Exegetica  (Or. 

xxxvi).     Kiel  Progr.,  1895. 

7.  Hahn,  C. — De  Dionis  Chrysostomi  Orationibus  quae  inscribuntur  Diogenis 

(vi,  vin,  ix,  x).     Hamburg,  1896. 

8.  Wegehaupt,  J. — De  Dione  Chrysostomo  Xenophontis  Sectatore.     Gotha, 

1896. 

9.  Von  Arnim,  J. — Leben  und  Werke  des  Dio  von  Prusa.     Berlin,  1898. 

Journals. 

1.  Emperius,  A. — Review  of  Geel's  Edition  of  Dio's  Oration  12.     Zeitschrift 

f.  Alterthumswissenschaft,  1841,  pp.  337-354. 

2.  Weber,  E.  — De  Dione  Chrysostomo  Cynicorum  Sectatore.    Leipzige  Studien, 

Vol.  10  (1886),  pp.  79-262. 

5 


6  Bibliography. 

3.  Weber,  R. — De  Dioscuridis  Trepi  t&v  nap  'On-fipy  v6/xwv  libello.     Leipz.  Stud., 

Vol.  11  (1888),  pp.  89-192. 

4.  Von  Arnim,  J. — Entstehung  und  Anordnung  der  Schriften-sammlung  Dios 

von  Prusa.     Hermes,  Vol.  26  (1891),  pp.  366-407. 

5.  Norden,  E. — Beitrage  zur  Geschichte  der  Griechischen  Philosophie.    Jahrb. 

f.  Class.  Phil.  Supplem.     Band  19  (1893),  pp.  368-460. 

Miscellaneous  Literature. 

1.  Plutarch— 

(a)  ira>s  Se?  rbv  veov  iron^ixdrwv  a/couetj/. 

(6)  wepl  tov  a,Kov€iv. 

(c)  irepl  rrjs  'A\e£dv8pov  rvxys  r)  aperrjs  \6yoi,  A,  B. 

(d)  irepl  rrjs  $vyr)s. 

(e)  trepl  rrjs  'HpoS6rov  Ka,Kol)8eias. 
(g)  vep\  ^TWLKckv  ivavTtw/j.drwv. 

(h)     (pseudo-Plut. )  nepl  tov  @iov  Kal  rrjs  ttoitjctcus  'Ojxi)pov. 

2.  Lucian — 

(a)  ir&s  Set  itTTOpiav  Gvyy  pd<peiv. 

(6)  4>iA.<nJ/ei/5ijs. 

(c)  a\7)6ovs  tcrropias  \6yoi,  A,  B. 

(d)  vepl  opxho'^fs. 

3.  Philostratos — 'HpwiicSs. 

4.  Lessing,  — . — The  Laocoon,  translated  by  Phillemore.     London,  1874. 

5.  Zeller,     E. — Stoics,     Epicureans,     and    Sceptics     (English    Translation). 

London,  1880. 

6.  Constant-Martha,  B. — Les  Moralistes  sous  1' Empire  Romain.     Paris,  1881. 

7.  Egger,  Emile. — Essai  sur  PHistoire  de  la  Critique  chez  les  Grecs.     Paris, 

1887. 

8.  Mahaffy,  J.  P. — The  Greek  World  under  Roman  Sway,  from  Polybius  to 

Plutarch.     London,  1890. 

9.  Bosanquet,  B. — A  History  of  Aesthetic.     London  and  New  York,  1892. 

10.  Carroll,  A.   Mitchell. — Aristotle's  Poetics,  ch.  xxv,   in  the  light  of  the 

Homeric  Scholia.     Baltimore,   Md.,   U.   S.   A., 
1895  (J.  H.  U.  Diss.). 

11.  Butcher,   S.   H. — Aristotle's  Theory  of  Poetry  and  Fine  Art.     London, 

1898. 


DIO  CHRYSOSTOM  AS  A  HOMERIC  CRITIC^ 


INTRODUCTION. 


No  reader  of  the  extant  works  of  Dio  of  Prusa  can  fail  to 
be  struck  with  his  extensive  use  of  Homer,  as  well  as  with  the 
diversity  of  purposes  to  which  he  puts  Homeric  quotation,  allu- 
sion, and  exegesis.  Because  of  the  additional  fact  that  Dio  is 
our  earliest  representative  of  the  so-called  Greek  Renascence,  the 
following  investigation  of  his  Homeric  studies  has  been  under- 
taken in  order  to  determine,  if  possible,  to  what  extent  he  is 
under  Platonic,  and  to  what  extent  under  Aristotelian  influence, 
in  transmitting  the  Homeric  criticism  of  an  earlier  day.  A 
three-fold  division  of  the  subject  has  been  adopted,  and  Dio's 
criticisms  upon  Homer  have  been  developed  upon  Sophistic, 
Aesthetic,  and  Ethical  grounds.  Though  these  are  at  times  only 
slightly  differentiated  from  each  other,  yet  this  order  has  the 
advantage  of  conforming  to  Dio's  traditional  change  from  purely 
rhetorical  to  philosophic  studies,  as  well  as  that  of  leading  up  to 
the  department  of  his  work  most  completely  representative  of  his 
real  spirit.  The  centre  of  the  sophistic  studies  lies  in  the  famous 
Oration  11,  Tpcoitcbs  rj  irepl  rov  "Wlov  /jlt)  aXwvai,  that  of  the 
aesthetic  in  the  no  less  famous  Oration  12,  'OXv^ttlko^  rj  irepl 
Try?  rov  <&€ov  ivvoias,  while  for  Dio's  conception  of  Homer  as  the 
conscious  ethical  teacher,  no  single  oration  can  be  taken  as  its 
expression.  It  inspires  the  larger  part  of  the  quotations  from 
Homer,  and  of  the  commentaries  based  upon  them. 

The  extraordinary  importance  of  the  last  division  is  due  to 
Dio's  intense  zeal  for  the  promulgation  of  ethical  teaching.  It 
was  this  trait  that  differentiated  him  from  his  contemporary 
Plutarch,  who,  though  often  drawing  from  the  same  sources  as 
Dio,  and  frequently  touching  him  in  spirit,  yet  rejected  the  r6le 

7 


8  Dio  Chrysostom  as  a  Homeric  Critic. 

of  popular  teacher,  and  clung  to  the  retirement  of  the  library. 
Furthermore,  the  same  trait  differentiated  him  from  his  successor 
Lucian,  the  mocker  both  of  things  human  and  of  things  divine. 

Dio's  main  purpose,  therefore,  the  quickening  of  the  moral  life 
in  the  Roman  provinces,  necessitated  the  abandonment  of  the 
speculative  side  of  philosophy.  He  was  both  Cynic  and  Stoic : 
Cynic,  in  his  daring  popularization  of  formal  philosophy ;  Stoic, 
in  his  acquaintance  with  the  best  Hellenic  models,1  and,  above  all, 
in  his  uniform  emphasis  of  the  individual's  duties  to  the  family, 
to  the  State,  and  to  society.2 

Dio  believed  that  the  moral  reforms  he  so  much  desired  must 
come  through  a  revival  of  the  ancient  Hellenic  feeling,3  and  this, 
in  its  turn,  through  the  reversion  to  classic  models.  With  Homer, 
the  chief  of  these,  he  found  a  widespread  acquaintance ;  and  there 
was  thus  offered  a  ready  medium  for  his  efforts. 

I.    SOPHISTIC  CRITICISM   OF   HOMER. 

Dio's  treatise  Tpcoi/cbs  r)  irepl  rov  "Wiov  fir)  aXwvcu,  acquires  a 
value  hardly  to  be  overestimated  when  it  is  remembered  that  it 
preserves,  in  more  organic  sequence  than  is  elsewhere  to  be  found, 
traces  of  the  adverse  Homeric  criticism  from  Aristotle  down. 
The  fact  that  scholars  have  differed  so  widely  concerning  its 
nature  and  date  of  composition  must  not  be  allowed  to  obscure 
its  undeniably  sophistic  character ;  though  to  assign  it  outright  to 
Dio's  pre-exilian,  that  is,  purely  rhetorical  period,  is  unnecessary. 
Indeed,  from  all  the  internal  evidence,  it  is  a  more  probable 
supposition  that  Dio  wrote  it  in  the  midst  of  his  sober  efforts. 
If  any  set  purpose  may  be  ascribed  to  it,  it  is  the  purpose  of 
burlesquing  the  professional  truth-teachers  through  the  treatment 
of  a  theme  so  preposterous  as  to  excel  them  on  their  own 
ground. 

The  treatise  is  based  upon  data  furnished  by  Aristotelian  and 
post-Aristotelian  criticism,  and  is  essentially  a  study  of  the  et/eo?, 

1  Cf.  the  orations  irepl  \6yov  do-K^trews  (18)  and  ircpl  AtVx^Aou  ical  So^o/cAeoux 

Kal  EvplTTlSoV  ^  lT€pl  TU)V  ^t\OKT^TOV  r6^U}V    (57). 

9  Cf.  the  Bithynic  Orations,  in  especial  (38-41 ;  43-45;  47-50). 
3  Cf.  the  social  study  outlined  in  Oration  36,  Bopv<t6witik6s. 


£*I-  [Pi 


Dio  Chrysostom  as  a  Homeric  Critic.  9 

as  outlined  in  the  Rhetoric,  Bk.  I,  ch.  2,  §§  14,  15.  Taking  as 
his  point  of  departure  the  dicta  laid  down  in  the  Poetics  concern- 
ing the  el/co?  and  the  avay/caiov,  as  applied  to  literary  productions,1 
Dio  rejects  the  fundamental  Aristotelian  demand  that  a  distinction 
be  drawn  in  art  between  the  aesthetic  and  the  ethical.  He  insists 
that  the  strict  rules  of  the  etVo?  be  applied  not  merely  to  the 
events  of  actual  life,  but  to  those  of  an  artistic  creation  such  as 
Homer's  Epic  concerning  Ilios. 

Oration  11  is,  therefore,  a  sophistic  tour  de  force,  in  which 
fragments  of  Peripatetic  criticism  upon  Homer  (the  work  not 
only  of  Aristotle's  immediate  school,  but  also  of  the  succeeding 
evaraTiKoi  and  \vtikoL)  are  combined  and  elaborated  from  the 
Platonic  point  of  view  that  all  art  must  subserve  sound  ethical 
teaching. 

These  fragments  of  Aristotelian  work  upon  Homer  are,  as  is 
'well  known,  contained  in  the  scholia,  and  especially  in  that  body 
of  scholia  that  bear  the  name  of  Porphyry.  Hence  the  large  use 
made  of  this  body  of  documents  in  the  present  treatment.  This 
has  been,  in  every  instance,  with  recognition  of  the  fact  that  Dio's 
sources  were  not  the  scholia  themselves,  but  the  original  works 
from  which  the  scholia  were  afterward  drawn  as  excerpts.  Only 
upon  this  understanding  can  a  system  of  parallelisms  between  Dio 
and  the  scholia  be  valid.2 

In  order  that  Dio's  debt  to  preceding  Homeric  criticism  may 
more  clearly  be  shown,  a  synopsis  of  the  salient  points  of  Oration 
11  is  necessary.  In  sections  11-14,  inclusive,  the  plan  to  be 
followed  in  the  oration  is  outlined.3  With  no  intention  of  flatter- 
ing Homer,  or  of  perversely  differing  from  him,  and  in  no  spirit 

1  Ch.  IX,  \  1  (1451a,  38),  ov  rb  to  yevSfxeva  \eyeiu,  rovro  tronjrov  epyov  eVriV, 
aK\'  61a  av  yeuoiro  Kai  ra  Svuara.  Kara,  rb  et/cbs  $)  rb  OLvayKatov.  So,  also,  ch.  XV, 
I  6  (1454a,  3o).  Ch.  XXIV,  10  (1460a,  30-34),  irpoaipe7<rdai  re  Set  aSvuard  elKora 
/xciWov  *)  Swara  airidava.      Cf.  also  ch.  XXV,  \  17  (1461b,  10-13). 

2  Hagen  (pp.  55-63)  contends  that  the  scholia  themselves  were  the  direct  source 
for  certain  of  Dio's  passages.  This  view  has  been  combated  by  R.  Weber,  Leipzige 
Siudien,  vol.  11,  p.  163. 

5  Close  adherence  to  Dio's  order  of  treatment  has  been  avoided.  This  would 
have  resulted  in  the  same  tangle  of  retracing  and  amplification  by  which  Dio 
deliberately  obscures  the  clearness  of  thought.  It  has  been  deemed  preferable 
to  group  around  each  topic  the  particular  details  pertaining  to  it. 


10  Dio  Chrysostom  as  a  Homeric  Critic. 

of  envy  for  his  fame,  Dio  announces  that  he  will  strive  to  show  in 
what  points  Homer  has  misrepresented  the  story  of  Ilios ;  and  he 
shall  be  refuted,  not  from  other  sources,  but  from  his  poetry  itself.1 
The  truth  is  to  be  established,  especially  for  the  sake  of  the 
reputation  of  the  three  goddesses,  Athene,  Hera,  and  Aphrodite. 
Nor  is  Helen's  defence  to  be  overlooked. 

The  first  task  that  Dio  set  himself,  §§  15-36,  is  to  overthrow 
Homer's  credibility  on  general  grounds.  Men  say  that  Homer, 
through  stress  of  poverty,  wandered  as  a  beggar  through  Hellas. 
It  is  thought  impossible  that  he  should  have  told  falsehoods  to 
win  the  favor  of  those  able  to  reward  him.  Yet  beggars  of  the 
present  day,  it  is  universally  agreed,  say  nothing  that  is  reliable ; 
nor  would  any  one  think  of  taking  them  as  witnesses  on  any 
point.  Furthermore,  Homer's  contemporaries  charged  him  with 
madness,  and  that  when  he  told  the  truth.  Not  that  Dio  censures 
Homer  on  either  of  these  scores ;  it  is  only  the  inconsistency  of 
men's  prevalent  opinion  concerning  these  facts  of  Homer's  life 
that  he  wishes  to  emphasize.  Nor  is  it  claimed  even  by  Homer's 
champions  that  he  does  not  admit  falsehood.2  He  often  represents 
Odysseus  as  lying,  and  yet  it  is  Odysseus  that  he  praises  most  of 
all  his  heroes.  He  even  says  that  the  chief  of  liars,  Autolykos, 
grandfather  of  Odysseus,  was  taught  by  Hermes.  Concerning  the 
gods,  it  is  admitted  that  all  he  says  is  false,  and  his  defenders 
devise  such  excuses  as  that  he  is  not  to  be  taken  seriously  here, 
but  as  speaking  in  riddles  and  metaphors.3  What  then  was  to 
hinder  him  from  so  speaking  of  men  also  ? 

lA  manifest  perversion  of  the  well-known  maxim  of  Aristarchus/O/iT/poi/  e| 
'O/xripov  <ra<pT)vi£eiv.  The  material  for  the  following  attack  upon  Homer's  credi- 
bility is  based  directly  upon  Herodotus,  Bk.  II,  chapters  112-120,  inclusive.  Cf. 
Hagen,  pp.  42-47.  The  spirit  of  the  argument,  furthermore,  shows  traces  of 
Thukydides,  Bk.  I,  chapters  ix-xi,  where  the  purpose  is  to  prove  that  Homer 
had  caused  the  importance  of  the  Trojan  war  to  be  much  overrated. 

2  The  point  is  Aristotelian,  as  well  as  Platonic.  Cf.  the  Poetics,  ch.  xxiv, 
U  8,  9;  and  the  Republic,  i,  334  ab. 

s  This  is  a  genuine  cynic  fling  at  the  methods  of  explanation  so  much  in  vogue 
among  the  early  Stoics.  The  locus  classicus  is  the  Qeo/xaxia  of  Iliad,  Bk.  20.  Cf. 
Pseudo-Plutarch,  irepl  rov  &lov  nal  ttjs  irot-fio-toos  'O/uLTjpov,  1137  bc,  1138  ab,  and 
Porphyry's  elaborate  scholium  to  Bk.  20,  67  fig. 


Dio  Chrysostom  as  a  Homeric  Critic.  11 

Dio  dismisses  as  commonplaces  Homer's  more  flagrant  false- 
hoods concerning  the  gods/  but  takes  for  examination  his  more 
moderate  representations  of  them.  Homer  did  not  scruple  to 
report  their  conversations,  not  only  those  which  took  place  in 
public,  but  also  those  in  private.  That  such  incidents  as  the 
quarrels  of  Zeus  and  Hera  should  become  known  of  a  mortal 
couple,  is  improbable :  how  much  more  so,2  when  the  gods  are 
cencerned?  Such  conversations  Homer  makes  Odysseus  say  he 
learned  through  Kalypso,  who,  in  turn,  had  them  from  some  one 
or  other ;  but  that  he  himself  had  them  from  any  god  directly,3 
Odysseus  nowhere  says.  Homer  even  claims  to  understand  the 
language  of  the  gods.4 

Moreover,  the  falsity  of  Homer's  narrative  is  the  more  conclu- 
sively proved  by  the  fact  that  he  did  not  take,  as  his  starting 
point,  the  logical  beginning  of  what  he  was  to  tell.  He  began 
absolutely  at  random,  an  unfailing  characteristic  of  those  who  are 
bent  upon  deception.  In  pursuance  of  this  purpose,  therefore,  he 
has  not  narrated  in  logical  sequence  the  story  of  Helen's  abduc- 
tion, or  of  the  capture  of  the  city,  the  traditional  beginning  and 

1  For  almost  the  exact  language,  compare  Oration  53,  \  2,  Trepi  'Ofi-fjpov,  where 
the  sentiment  is  taken  as  the  representative  of  Plato's  Homeric  criticism  on  the 
ethical  side.  The  allusion  is  manifestly  to  such  passages  as  the  Republic,  II, 
378  d  ;  in,  386  ad.  On  the  other  hand,  myths  of  a  similar  character  serve  Dio 
to  point  ethical  lessons.     Of.  Or.  14,  \  21,  and  Or.  80,  \\  7-8. 

J  The  same  a  fortiori  argument  is  used,  \  13,  where  Dio  rejects  the  tradition 
that  Hera  was  inimical  to  Paris  because  of  his  decision  against  her.  The  other 
side  of  the  argument  is  seen  in  Porphyry,  who,  in  the  Schol.  to  II.  4,  51, 
defends  Hera  on  this  very  charge. 

3  Cf.,  also,  \  34,  where  emphasis  is  laid  upon  the  fact  that  the  mythical  portions 
of  the  Odyssey  are  narrated,  not  by  Homer  himself,  but  by  Odysseus.  Similarly, 
\  81,  the  vilification  of  Alexandros  (Paris)  is  Hektor's,  not  Homer's.  Such  is 
the  sophistic  perversion  of  the  Aristotelian  kv<ns  £k  tov  npoa-dirov ;  cf.  Porphyry, 
Schol.  to  11  23,  71,  and  to  6,  265.  Aristotle,  Poetics,  ch.  xxiv,  \  7,  praises 
Homer  for  the  very  quality  which  Dio  here  so  severely  censures. 

*  The  name  examples  of  dialectical  divergences  are  adduced  in  Oration  10, 
\\  23,  24,  as  differentiating  the  language  of  the  gods  from  that  of  mortals. 
There,  also,  the  sophistic  tone  is  dominant,  and  the  cynic  Diogenes  is  the 
speaker.  The  sentiment  and  language  are  direct  imitations  of  the  well-known 
passage  in  the  Cratylus,  391  d.  Diimmler,  however,  Antisthenica,  p.  39,  main- 
tains that  Megakleides,  of  the  Aristotelian  school,  is  Dio's  direct  source.  His 
argument  is  not  conclusive. 


12  Bio  Chrysostom  as  a  Homeric  Critic. 

end  of  the  story  of  Ilios.  Concerning  the  former  theme,  what 
could  have  been  a  more  appropriate  starting  point  than  the 
insolence  and  wrong-doing  of  Alexandros  ?  Premising  these,  he 
would  have  predisposed  the  hearer  in  favor  of  his  narrative,1  and 
all  would  have  joined  in  his  hatred  of  the  Trojans,  and  acquiesced 
in  the  justice  of  their  downfall.  And  not  only  does  the  narrative 
begin  at  an  illogical  point,  but  the  poet  proceeds  to  introduce 
marvellous  and  incredible  incidents,  which  not  even  he  himself 
originally  intended.  It  was  Homer's  increasing  contempt  for 
mankind,  as  being  so  easily  deceived,  and  his  desire  to  flatter 
the  Achaeans,  and  the  Atreidae,  that  led  him  to  confuse,  and  even 
to  reverse,  the  whole  story.  He  announces  his  intention  to  tell 
of  the  wrath  of  Achilles,  and  of  the  consequent  woes  of  the 
Achaeans,  as  though  these  were  the  most  important  of  all  the 
events.  As  Homer  says,  in  all  this  the  will  of  Zeus  was  fulfilled, 
and  it  most  probably  occurred  as  Homer  narrates ;  but  as  for 
the  succeeding  changes,  such  as  the  death  of  Hektor,  and  the 
capture  of  the  city,  he  did  not  then  have  these  in  mind.  Though 
engaging  to  tell  the  cause  of  the  woes  of  the  Achaeans,  he  leaves 
Alexandros  and  Helen,  and  wanders  away  from  his  subject  to 
babble  of  Chryses  and  his  daughter.  So,  also,  as  regards  the  con- 
clusion, if  he  wished  to  tell  the  most  important  events,  what  more 
fitting  than  the  final  capture  of  the  city,  if  it  really  occurred,  with 
its -innumerable  attendant  horrors?  Instead  of  this,  however,  he 
has  instituted  a  combat  between  Achilles  and  a  river,  and  has 
portrayed  the  unseemly  picture  of  the  gods  fighting  among  them- 
selves. In  view  of  these  facts,  it  must  be  conceded  either  that 
Homer  was  a  poor  judge  of  the  relative  importance  of  different 

•  lIt  is  this  very  characteristic,  according  to  Zenodotos, — cf.  Porphyry  to  Iliad, 
1,  1,  which  gives  strength  to  the  introduction  to  the  poem.  Porphyry,  Scholium 
to  II.  12,  127,  quotes  Hephaestion,  also,  in  explanation  of  the  introduction.  It 
is  there  suggested  by  the  seeming  rapax^i  ™v  &*&*  of  the  Asios  episode.  It  is 
Aristotle,  however,  who  is  the  ultimate  source  for  Dio's  objections  to  Homer  on 
this  point :  Poetics,  ch.  VII,  3 :  Set  &pa  robs  o-vveo-rccaras  ei  /xvdovs  fi-ffO'  6ir66ev 
<etvx*v  &pxeo*Qai  yA\ff  faou  ervx*  rekevrav  k.  t.  A.  Further  on,  however,  ch.  XXIII, 
3,  Homer's  treatment  is  taken  as  the  model:  koI  ravrr/  0e<r7reVtos  &u  <pav*i-n"Ofx'opos 
iraph.  robs  bWovs,  ry  jxrjSe  rbv  w^Ae/xov  xaiirep  ^x0VTa  apx^v  Kal  reAos  £irixeipv°~ai 
irote'iv  '6hov  ....  vvv  5'  '4v  fiepos  airoKa&iw  iircto'ob'iois  KexPVrai  o-brwv  ttoWoIs  .  . 
ols  8iaAa.fj.Ba.vei  r^v  iroir)0~iv. 


(c: 


Dio  Chrysostom  as  a  Homeric  Critic.  13 

subjects,  or  that  he  found  it  impossible  to  continue  in  the  course 
of  deception  into  which  he  had  fallen. 

Sections  37-53,  inclusive,  are  devoted  to  what  Dio  maintains  to 
be  the  real  history  of  Helen's  coming  to  Ilios.  By  a  dramatic 
device  borrowed  from  Herodotus  (Bk.  II,  ch.  118),  an  aged 
Egyptian  priest  is  represented  as  the  speaker.  He  claims  extra- 
Homeric  sources  of  knowledge,  such  as  priestly  records  contem- 
porary with  the  Trojan  war,  and  based  upon  the  testimony  of 
Menelaos  himself,  who,  after  the  failure  of  the  expedition,  had 
taken  up  his  abode  in  Egypt.  According  to  the  old  priest,  Helen, 
daughter  of  Tyndareos,  King  of  Sparta,  and  Leda  his  wife, 
became  early  renowned  for  her  beauty.  She  was  abducted  by 
Theseus,  King  of  Athens,  but  was  speedily  recovered  by  her 
brothers,  who  inflicted  heavy  penalties  upon  him.1  After  Aga- 
memnon had  married  Helen's  sister,  Klytaemnestra,  he  sought 
Helen's  hand  for  Menelaos  an  account  of  political  reasons.  But 
Helen  was  sought  by  many  suitors,  who  came  from  far  and  near, 
among  them  Alexandras,  son  of  Priam,  surpassing  all  the  others 
in  birth,  wealth  and  comeliness.  By  manifold  representations  of 
his  superiority,2  he  won  the  favor  of  Tyndareos  and  his  sons,  and 
became  Helen's  accepted  suitor.  Thus  he  won  her  fairly  and  took 
her  away  to  Ilios,  with  the  full  consent  of  her  natural  protectors, 
and  was  received  in  Ilios  with  universal  good-feeling.' 

Dio  now  suspends  the  narrative  of  the  old  priest  in  order  to 
show  the  absurdity  of  the  traditional  account.  It  is  of  all  things 
improbable  that  Alexandras  should  have  become  enamored  of  a 
womau  whom  he  had  never  seen  j  and  still  more  improbable  that 
she  could  have  been  persuaded  to  leave  her  husband,  and  kins- 
people,  and,  though  the  mother  of  an  only  daughter,  follow 
a  man  of  alien  race  to  a  distant  land.  It  was  because  of  this 
inconsistency  (aXoyia)  that  men  fashioned  the  myth  about  Aphro- 

1  The  emphasis  put  by  Dio  upon  Theseus  is  a  direct  reminiscence  of  Isokrates, 
Helen,  U  18,  19- 

9  Cf.  also  Dio's  Oration  20,  Trepl  avaxwpfatos,  \  20.  The  language  and  thought 
of  both  passages  shows  strong  indications  of  debt  to  Isokrates'  Helen,  \\  39-48, 
inclusive.  Oration  20,  while  using  Isokratean  language,  is  not  sophistic,  and 
follows  the  traditional  Homeric  account. 


14  Dio  Chrysostom  as  a  Homeric  Critic. 

dite,  a  myth  even  more  silly,  if  possible,  than  the  inconsistency 
itself.1 

Even  if  Alexandros  had  wished  to  pursue  such  a  course,  how  is 
it  possible  that  his  father,2  a  man  by  no  means  without  intelligence, 
and  his  mother,  could  have  allowed  him  to  do  so?  How  is  it 
probable,  too,  that  Hektor  should  at  first  acquiesce,  and  then 
reproach  and  revile  Alexandros  for  the  abduction,  as  Homer 
unmistakably  makes  him  do  ? 3  How  was  it  that  neither  Helenos 
nor  Kassandra,  both  of  whom  had  the  gift  of  prophecy,  nor 
Antenor,  foretold  the  result  of  such  an  action  ? 

In  what  way,  furthermore,  is  it  probable  that  Alexandros  had 
opportunities  of  persuading  Helen  to  adopt  such  a  course,  whether 
Menelaos  were  at  home  or  absent  on  military  service?  How 
could  he  have  managed  the  abduction  in  so  leisurely  a  manner 
as  not  to  be  satisfied  with  carrying  off  the  wife 4  of  Menelaos  with 
much  of  his  household  goods,  but  also  to  dare  to  carry  along  her 
maid  Aithra,  the  old  and  feeble  mother  of  Theseus?5  All  these 
details,  if  true,  so  far  from  being  proofs  (o-rj/jLeia)  of  Helen's 
abduction,  are  really  such  of  her  lawful  marriage6  to  Alexandros. 

Furthermore,  no  pursuit  of  the  fugitives  was  made,  though 
there  must  have  been  ships  in  Laconia,  and  though  the  fugitives 

1  Dio  is  here  using  a  purposely  confused  version  of  the  argument  represented 
in  Porphyry,  Scholium  to  11.  4,  51 :  evirpeirr)  fSov\6/*evos  ireptdrivai  avrrj  ("Hpa) 
r^v  airiav  rrjs  opyrjs  6  ttoitit^s  Kal  o\>x  &  jxvQos  avairXdrret,  k.  t.  A.  The  question 
here  raised  as  affecting  Hera  is  transferred  to  Aphrodite.  Cf.  \  53,  where  Dio 
defends  Hera,  Athene,  and  Aphrodite  in  common  on  the  score  of  the  judgment 
of  Alexandros. 

*Dio  has  closely  followed  the  argument  in  Herodotus,  Bk.  II,  ch.  120,  ad  init. 

3  In  sections  65  and  119,  Dio  emphasizes  Hektor's  unwillingness  to  make  peace 
with  the  Achaeans,  chiefly  because  of  his  anger  at  what  he  deemed  the  injustice 
done  to  Alexandros.  In  \  113,  Dio  explains  Hektor's  reproaches  by  the  \i<ris  e« 
rod  itaipov,  assigning  them  to  a  time,  not  covered  by  Homer,  when  Alexandros 
was  left  in  command  of  the  Trojans  watching  the  discomfited  Achaeans,  and 
allowed  them  to  escape.  Cf.  Porphyry's  Scholium  to  II.  3,  16-49 :  vvy  Se  Sta  rl 
ravra  irpocpepei;  ov  yap  8^  &o~Tr£p"Oinipos  Trpurr^y  fidxyv  ravri]v  v<pio~rarai  ev  iroiijcrei, 
Kal  reus  a\rideiais  ^v,  Iva  \6yov  eAp  6  rov  "Enropos  6vetSi<Tfx6s,  el  ^  apa  Koihopov 
€Tri8e?£cu  fiovkercu  Kal  bpyihov  &\Kws  rbv"EKropa. 

*For  almost  the  exact  language,  compare  Herodotus,  Bk:  II,  ch.  115,  ad  fin. 

5  Porphyry's  Scholium  to  11.  3,  144,  shows  that  the  ivaraais  to  Aithra's  having 
been  Helen's  handmaid  at  all  was  a  commonplace. 

6  For  the  same  sophistic  tone,  cf.  Isokrates'  Helen,  \  23. 


Dio  Chrysostom  as  a  Homeric  Critic.  15 

had  to  go  on  foot  from  Sparta  down  to  the  sea.  Nor,  indeed, 
according  to  Homer,  did  Helen's  brothers  and  father,  those  most 
injured  of  all,  take  part  in  the  Trojan  expedition,  though  all  the 
rest  of  the  Achaeans  did.  In  his  endeavor  to  hide  this  incon- 
sistency (aXoyla),  Homer  represents  Helen  as  wondering  where 
her  brothers  are :  and  he  explains  that  they  had  died  since  she  had 
seen  them.1  Then  it  is  clear  that  they  were  alive  when  Helen 
was  abducted. 

Furthermore,  even  if  they  were  present  during  the  first  years 
of  the  war,  Homer  makes  them  wait  ten  years  for  Agamemnon  to 
gather  an  army.  Why  did  they  not  give  pursuit  immediately? 
Had  they  not,  in  their  unaided  strength,  proceeded  at  once  against 
Theseus,  a  Hellen,  the  bravest  of  all  men,  the  ruler  of  many,  the 
friend  of  Herakles  and  Peirithoos?  Would  they  not  have  done 
the  same  against  Alexandras,  had  they  deemed  themselves  injured? 

So,  also,  as  regards  Tyndareos  himself,  it  is  of  all  things 
probable  that  he  would  have  taken  part  in  the  expedition.  By 
Homer's  own  showing,  he  was  no  older  than  Nestor  or  Phoenix  j 
and  surely  these  should  not  have  felt  more  aggrieved  at  Helen's 
abduction  than  her  own  father.  Nor,  remarks  Dio  in  passing,  can  it 
be  true  that  Menelaos  commanded  the  Lacedaemonians  while  Tynda- 
reos was  still  alive.  Nestor  did  not  abdicate  even  in  favor  of  his 
sons  :  strange  (hecvov)  that  Tyndareos  should  have  done  so  in  favor 
of  Menelaos.     ^alverat  ....  ical  ravra  jroWrjv  cnropiav  e^ovra. 

In  section  61,  the  narrative  of  the  old  priest  is  resumed. 
Agamemnon,2  instigated  by  Menelaos'  reproaches,  called  together 
Helen's  former  suitors,  and  encouraging  them  by  the  recital  of  the 
fertility  and  wealth  of  Asia,  and  of  the  great  number  of  his  kins- 
men 3  there  who  would  be  glad  to  cooperate  with  them  against 

'Helen's  ignorance  of  her  brothers'  fate  was  a  favorite  battleground  for 
ivarariKol  and  \vtikoI.  Compare  Porphyry's  long  Scholium  to  II.  3,  236,  in 
which  he  gives  the  \v<reis  both  of  Aristotle  and  of  Herakleides.  They  are  partly 
iK  tov  Kcupov,  partly  e/c  rod  edovs. 

aSee  Thukydides,  Bk.  I,  ch.  9,  \\  3,  4.  5,  for  the  source  of  later  scepticism  as 
to  why  Agamemnon  obtained  the  command  of  the  Achaean  forces. 

3  This  point  of  Agamemnon's  Asiatic  origin  as  the  explanation  of  the  faults 
of  his  character  is  the  theme  of  Dio's  dialogue,  Oration  61,  Aya/n4/xvwv  fj  wepl 
&ao~iAcias.  This  dialogue  is  exactly  parallel  to  the  Oration  under  consideration, 
being  a  sophistic  study  of  the  elic6s  from  Homer's  representations  of  Chryseis. 


16  Dio  Chrysostom  as  a  Homeric  Critic. 

Ilios,  induced  them  to  join  the  expedition.  A  formal  demand 
was  made  upon  Priam  for  the  restitution  of  Helen,  which  the 
Trojans,  conscious  of  their  own  innocence,  as  well  as  that  of 
Alexandros,  indignantly  refused.  Had  they  not  been  innocent, 
who  among  them  would  have  submitted  to  such  woes  as  they  did, 
when  they  had  it  in  their  power  to  end  them  by  surrendering 
Helen  ?  *  So  far,  however,  from  being  willing  to  do  this,  even  the 
traditional  account  has  it  that  they  kept  her  in  the  city  after 
the  death  of  Alexandros,  and  gave  her  in  marriage  to  Deiphobos, 
another  son  of  Priam.  But  how  could  she  have  been  willing  to 
remain  in  Uios,  unless  indeed  Homer's  champions  are  prepared 
to  say  that  she  had  become  infatuated  with  Deiphobos  also  ?  Had 
her  abduction  been  the  real  cause  of  the  war,  it  is  most  probable 
that  after  the  death  of  Alexandros,  she  would  have  persuaded  the 
Trojans  to  surrender  her,  and  that  they  would  have  been  eager  to 
do  so ;  or  that,  at  all  events,  she  would  have  striven  to  reconcile 
the  contending  parties. 

The  Achaeans  were  repulsed  in  their  first  attempt  to  land. 
One  of  their  chiefs,  Protesilaos,  was  slain,  and  they  were  forced  to 
seek  safety  in  the  Chersonesus.  They  returned,  landed  under 
cover  of  night,  and  constructed  a  camp  immediately  at  the  ships, 
and  protected  by  rampart  and  ditch.  Avoiding  a  decisive  battle, 
they  confined  their  operations  to  forays  into  the  surrounding 
territory.  Dio  offers  two  proofs  (reK/xripta)  that  they  occupied  no 
other  territory  than  their  own  camp  :  first,  that  Troilos,2  a  mere 
stripling,  should  have  run  for  exercise  so  far  beyond  the  city's 
walls  as  to  be  captured  by  Achilles  in  ambush ;  and  second,  that 
the  Achaeans  cultivated  the  Chersonese,  and  brought  wine  from 
Lemnos.3 

The  Achaeans  began  to  be  in  dire  straits.  Hunger  and  pesti- 
lence bore  heavily  upon  them,  and  strife  arose  between  their  two 


lThis  is  precisely  the  argument  in  Herodotus,  Bk.  II,  ch.  119,  and  Isokrates, 
Helen,  $  50. 

3  Troilos  is  mentioned  but  once  in  the  entire  Iliad,  24,  257.  Dio's  account  of 
his  death  is  taken  not  from  Homer,  but  from  some  other  epic  of  the  cycle,  as  is 
his  conception  of  him  as  being  very  young.  Cf.  Aristonikos'  note,  Schol.  (Dind.) 
to  II.  24,  257. 

3  This  is  the  exact  language  of  Thukydides,  Bk.  I,  ch.  11,  2. 


Dio  Chrysostom  as  a  Homeric  Critic.  17 

greatest  chiefs, — all  circumstances  essentially  characteristic  of  a 
defeated,  not  a  victorious  array.  All  this,  and  more,  Homer  him- 
self admits.  In  Agamemnon's  calling  the  council  of  the  entire 
host,  as  though  to  give  up  the  expedition ;  in  the  frenzied  rush  of 
the  mob  for  the  ships;  in  the  great  difficulty  with  which  Nestor 
and  Odysseus  restrained  them,  and  that  only  by  pleading  to  them 
the  prophecy  of  a  seer  whom  Agamemnon  had  only  a  short  time 
before  accused  of  uttering  no  word  of  truth — in  all  this  Homer 
fairly  presents  the  truth.  So,  too,  is  the  defeat  of  the  Achaeans ; 
the  dejection  in  their. camp  on  the  night  following  this;  Agamem- 
non's panic,  and  his  calling  the  assembly  of  the  elders  to  deliberate 
upon  flight ;  the  appeals  to  Achilles  for  aid  ;  and  the  irresistible 
prowess  of  Hektor,  who  forced  his  way  even  to  the  ships  despite 
the  apiarelai  unavailingly  accorded  to  Agamemnon,  Diomede,  and 
Odysseus.  All  this  Homer  has  narrated,  not  because  he  wished 
to  set  it  forth  as  the  truth,  but  because  he  had  unwittingly  become 
involved  in  it.  It  is,  however,  when  he  comes  to  magnify  the 
Achaeans1  that  he  is  full  of  perplexity,  and  is  plainly  falsifying. 
Aias  twice  vanquished  Hektor,  but  without  result.  Such,  too,  was 
Diomede's  victory  over  Aeneas,  by  which  nothing  was  achieved 
save  the  capture  of  Aeneas'  horses,  a  circumstance  admitting  of  no 
refutation.  Not  knowing  in  w7hat  point  to  flatter  the  Achaeans, 
he  makes  Ares  and  Aphrodite  wounded  by  Diomede.  Thus,  in 
his  embarrassment,  he  hits  upon  impossible  and  even  impious 
inventions.     In  the  case  of  Hektor,  however,  he  is  at  no  such  loss, 

1  Sections  82,  86.  Cf.  also  83,  92.  This  recognition  of  Homer's  partiality  is 
founded  upon  the  adverse  criticism  of  sophists  and  'O/jirjpo-uda-Tiycs  of  all  periods. 
Porphyry  is  full  of  it.  Cf.  the  Scholium  to  II.  1,  1,  where  it  serves  to  explain 
Homer's  choice  of  the  firjvis  as  a  starting  point;  to  3,  365  fig.,  where  the  illogical 
details  of  the  combat  of  Menelaos  and  Alexandros  are  subjected  to  rigorous 
handling ;  to  3,  379,  380 ;  to  4,  457,  where  general  objection  to  the  apio-rela  of 
Diomede  are  urged;  to  4,  505;  to  5  (Diomede's  api<rre?a),  1,  7,  20,  where  Zoilos 
is  quoted,  certain  details  being  criticised  as  Kiav  ye\o7a;  to  5,  290,  291,  336,  341, 
430,  451 ;  to  6,  129,  235,  where  Diomede's  unseemly  threats  and  boasts  are  rigor- 
ously handled  ;  to  8,  5  ;  to  11,  53,  54,  624 ;  to  12,  500;  to  15,  56-77  (and  Scholium 
Dind.  to  8,  2),  where  the  authenticity  of  the  passage  is  made  to  depend  upon 
Homer's  supposed  partiality  for  the  Achaeans;  to  19,  407,  and  21,  407,  where 
hostile  criticism  upon  certain  details  common  to  the  apiarelai  of  the  Achaean 
chiefs  is  urged. 


18  Dio  Chrysostom  as  a  Homeric  Critic. 

which  shows  that  he  is  narrating  real  occurrences.  Here  we  have 
no  Aeneas  carried  off  by  Aphrodite,  nor  Ares  wounded  by  a 
mortal,  nor  any  such  incredible  circumstance. 

It  was  thenceforward  impossible  that  men  so  badly  discomfited 
as  the  Achaeans  should  turn  the  tide  of  fortune.  The  strength 
of  the  Myrmidons,  compared  with  that  of  the  whole  Achaean 
host,  was  surely  not  adequate  to  this  j  much  less  the  single  indi- 
vidual Achilles.  Tt  could  not  be  that  he  was  then,  for  the  first 
time,  to  fight  in  open  battle.  On  the  contrary,  he  must  often 
before  that  have  been  engaged,  but  nothing  remarkable  is  recorded 
of  him,  unless  his  capture  of  Troilos  is  to  be  counted  such.  From 
Achilles'  reeutrance  into  the  fight,  Dio  maintains  that  Homer 
flung  away  all  regard  for  the  truth. 

The  actual  events  connected  with  the  combat  of  Achilles  and 
Hektor  are  now  set  forth  by  Dio.  Achilles,  aroused  by  his  own 
danger,  lent  his  aid  at  the  critical  point  when  the  Trojans 
threatened  the  very  ships  of  the  Achaeans.  He  checked  the 
enemy,  and  finally  drove  them  back,  performing  many  feats  of 
valor,  and  slaying  many  illustrious  Trojans.  Hektor  meanwhile 
carefully  husbanded  his  own  strength,  and  allowed  Achilles  to 
weary  himself  out,  fighting  with  the  general  throng,  and,  above 
all,  struggling  at  the  crossing  of  the  river.1  Hektor  led  him  on 
in  eager  pursuit,  until,  seeing  his  opportunity,  he  faced  him 
boldly,  slew  him,  and  got  possession  of  his  armor,  with  which 
he  continued  the  slaughter  of  the  Achaeans  as  far  as  the  ships. 
The  capture  of  the  armor  even  Homer  admits.  Achilles'  body 
itself  was,  with  the  greatest  difficulty,  saved  by  Aias  Teiamonios 
and  Aias  Oi'leos. 


1  vnb  rod  Trora/xov  KOirtadeura  fiei&vos  ippur^Kdros  cbreipcos  Sia^atvovra  k.  t.  A. 
Such  is  Dio's  rationalistic  version  of  Homer's  elaborate  portrayal  of  Achilles' 
fight  with  the  river  Skamandros.  Achilles'  weariness  is  similarly  emphasized  by 
Porphyry,  Schol.  to  II.  22,  165:  <pa<rlv  oi  jxkv  eVii^es  avrbv  virb  rov  -rroirjTov 
KaTaireirovrj(r6ai  iroA\(jj  ir6vq)  Trp6repov,  'lv  uxrirep  ev  Oedrpcp  vvv  fiei^oua  Kivi\(Tr\  TrdOt], 
k.  t.  A.  Aristotelian  influence  is  manifest  here,  it  is  interesting,  as  throwing 
light  on  Dio's  explanation,  to  note  that  recent  topographical  research  indicates 
that  the  ancient  volume  of  the  Skamandros  was  much  larger  than  the  present, 
and  that,  even  now,  it  becomes  dangerous  when  swollen  by  rains.  Cf.  Schliemann, 
Ilios,  pp.  85,  178,  322. 


Dio  Chrysostom  as  a  Homeric  Critic.  19 

There  was  no  way  to  conceal  the  truth  of  all  this,  save  by 
representing  Patroklos  as  the  warrior  who  had  taken  Achilles' 
place,  and  who  fell  in  the  fight.  And  yet,  how  is  it  possible  that 
Achilles  could,  at  so  critical  a  juncture,  have  sent  Patroklos  to  the 
fight?1  He  knew  him  to  be  Hektor's  inferior,  and  yet  he  himself, 
surpassing  all  in  prowess,  remained  behind  sulking  in  his  quarters. 
Furthermore,  how  could  he  have  bidden  Patroklos  avoid  Hektor,2 
but  accept  any  other  Trojan  warrior  as  his  adversary  ?  This  no 
man  could  do,  when  once  he  had  gone  forth  to  battle.  Neverthe- 
less, it  was  to  so  inferior  a  warrior  that  Achilles  entrusted  his 
armor  and  steeds.  Indeed,  as  regards  the  armor  itself,  Homer 
is  inconsistent :  though  Achilles  saw  that  Patroklos  could  not 
wield  the  spear,  he  yet  gave  him  the  rest  of  the  armor,3  which 
must  surely  have  been  of  size  and  weight  proportionate  to  it. 
Moreoverv  Achilles,  prays  to  Zeus  to  return  his  friend  in  safety, 
though  he  knew  him  to  be  likely  to  meet  a  warrior  of  whom 
Agamemnon  had  directly  accused  Achilles  himself  of  being  afraid. 
And,  indeed,  this  charge  must  have  been  true ;  for  anger  alone 
would  never  have  caused  him  to  remain  away  from  battle.  But, 
says  Homer,  he  was  unwilling  to  release  the  Achaeans  from  their 
peril   until  he  had  secured  the  gifts  he  expected,  nor  had  he  yet 

1  Cf.  Porphyry,  Schol.  to  II.  11,  611 :  irpoyKovSjxiqo-e  rovro  (i.  e.,  the  sending  of 
Patroklos  by  Achilles  to  made  inquiries  concerning  the  fight)  6  iroiyr^s  oSrces,  'Iva 
.  .  .  .  'A^tAAe'ci  §et£p  fxer'  ev\6yov  irpo<pdae<as  els  rbv  ir6\efxov  e^dyovra  rbv  TldrpoK\ov. 
Cf.  also  &chol.  to  11.  11,  76  fig.  :  cttf£ei  5e  vvv  rbv  TVdrpoKXov  oos  SeSfievos  avrov  k.  t.  A.  ,• 
and  to  15,  56-77,  which  passage  \_the  prophecy  of  Zeus)  was  athetized  by  Aristo- 
phanes and  Aristarchus,  entirely  omitted  by  Zenodotus,  and  is  condemned  by 
modern  criticism.  Porphyry  debates  it  on  various  grounds:  p-qreov  olv  '6ri  rb 
crenel  iffri  Trpoava,Ke<pa\aia)cris  k.  t.  A.  .  .  .  v60ev  Se  drjKov  el  jxera.  Odvarov^Ax^Wecas 
(sic)  yey6vao~i  rpoirai ;  ....  irpbs  5e  rovrois  irapafx.vBel.rai  rbv  aKpodryv,  r^v  'aKooaiv 
Tpoias  (TKiaypa<pu>v  avr$,  k.  t.  A.  .  .  .  <pa<rl  Se  (ol  etyiy^rai)  Ka\  on  5'  6  (MaWwrys) 
Zrjv6Soros  ra  etc  rov  TldrpoicKov  (1.  65)  ews  rov  'A^'AAea  (1.  77)  Evpnri§eiq>  \eyei 
eoifcevcu  irpoK6y<pf  k-  t.  A. 

8Cf.  Porphyry  to  II.  18,  22,  upon  the  violence  of  Achilles'  grief  for  Patroklos  : 
ZauAos  Se  <pi\aiv  droirov  vvv  elSevai  rbv  'AxiAAf'cr  npoeiSevai  re  yap  expyv  Sri  koivoI  oi 

TTOhepUKol   KlvbvVOl   K.  T.  A. 

3Cf.  Porphyry,  Schol.  to  II.  16,  140:  Sia  r(  olv  fiSvov  rb  U-qKioiriKbv  avrf 
avapfxocrre'i  d6pv,  ru>v  &\\o)v  ap/u-ocravrcov  SirXuiv  ;  MeyaK^eiSrjs  eV  Sevrepcp  irepl  'OjUL^pov 
irpooiKovo/u.e7(rdai  <pr)<riv  rrjv  dirAoirouav,  k.  r.  A.  Cf,  also  the  Scholiast  in  Bf  216a 
upon  eyxos-  ....  icaretcpvipe  /xevroi  rb  ir\d(r/xa  rrj  rov  'AxiAAews  vwepoxj),  Si 
ao~deveiav  ov  SvvrjOrjvai  <pi\o~as  rbv  TldrponXov  ical  r§  S6pari  XP*?0^"'- 


20  Dio  Chrysostom  as  a  Homeric  Critic. 

ceased  from  his  wrath.  But  what  was  there  to  hinder  him  from 
going  forth  to  battle,  and,  then,  on  his  return,  nursing  his  wrath 
as  much  as  he  pleased?  Homer  recognizes  the  inconsistency  in  all 
this,  when  he  hints  darkly  of  a  certain  prophecy  which  reached 
Achilles  through  his  mother.  This  was  that  he  would  surely  fall, 
if  he  should  ever  go  forth  to  battle.  That  this  prophecy  should 
have  impressed  him  so  deeply,  is  but  a  direct  accusation  of 
cowardice.1 

The  very  prophecy,  also,  was  defective,  in  that  it  gave  Achilles 
no  hint  of  the  fate  which  awaited  Patroklos,  though,  says  Homer, 
Achilles  loved  him  as  himself,  and  upon  his  death  no  longer  cared 
to  live.2  In  short,  it  must  be  already  apparent  that  Patroklos  was 
an  entirely  supposititious  personage — v7t6/3\t]t6s  rt? — substituted 
by  Homer  for  Achilles.3  Indeed,  Homer's  representing  him  as 
buried  in  the  same  tomb  with  Achilles  was  for  the  express  purpose 
of  forestalling  any  search  for  his  tomb,  which  might  be  made  in 
view  of  the  fact  that  the  tombs  of  all  the  other  heroes  who  fell  at 

1  Cf.  also  %$  77,  91,  100,  101,  for  Dio's  further  attacks  upon  Achilles'  courage. 
It  was  a  commonplace  of  the  oblrectalores :  cf.  Dindorf,  Schol.  A  to  II.  22,  188, 
and  Porphyry  to  11.  1,1.  For  the  same  complication  of  the  wrath  of  Achilles 
with  suspicions  as  to  his  courage,  cf.  Porphyry  to  II.  7,  22:  .  .  .  .  Xva  /xr} 
("Ektu>p)  ofyrai  rbv  'A^AAe'ci  airoScSeiAiaKevai  ....  €Ik6tcos  \ckt4ov  (Alavri)  a 
irciroudev  5Ax'AA.euy. 

2  For  the  violence  of  his  grief,  Achilles  came  to  be  regarded  as  the  type  of 
avufiaXos.     Cf.  Plato,  Rep.  in,  391,  and  Porphyry,  to  11.  18,  98. 

3  This  startling  induction  cannot,  in  the  light  of  the  extant  scholia,  be  ascribed 
to  any  special  Homeric  critic  as  a  source.  It  is  rather  the  net  result  of  the 
immense  mass  of  sophistic  criticism  directed  against  the  last  books  of  the  Iliad, 
especially  Books  18  and  22.  It  seems  to  be  adumbrated  in  such  scholia  as  that 
of  Porphyry  to  II.  3,  154:  '6ri  di  etc  ru>v  otKwv  zvr\v  ir\avT)Qr\vai  robs  airb  ruv  '6it\wv 
(T7}/j.atuo/uLevovs  eKaarov,  Sr]\o7  to.  iirl  rov  TIarp6Khov,  os  ivSvaaaOat  ra  'A^tAAe'c^s  '6irha 
48c-fi9ri,  k.  t.  A.  o8tu>s  ovk  i\v  rbv  airb  rwv  '6ir\(tiv  riva  8o£d£ovra  ^§77  Kal  ovrws  yivciffKeiv 
abr6v.  Cf.  also  Porphyry  to  II.  5,  85,  and  Scholiast  B  (Dindorf)  to  16,  244.  Cf. 
also  Porphyry  to  II.  18,  192:  rjvioxov  elvai  rbv  YldrpoKKov  Xtyovres  rives,  cpacrt  jx^ 
*Xeiu  avrbv  Sirha  ....  KpdrrfS,  '6ri  ra  Uarp6Kkov  AvrofieScav  elxev,  'dirais  Icr&Ori  rb 
e?5os  Kal  S6^u(riv  elvai,  6  fx\v  'AxiAAeus,  6  5e  UarpoKkos.  Much,  of  course,  must  be 
ascribed  to  Dio's  own  sophistic  perversion.  For  example,  there  was  an  uncer- 
tainty, early  seized  upon  by  the  ivarartKoi,  as  to  the  meaning  of  Mvp/j.t86vcov  rbv 
&pi<rrov,  in  the  speech  of  Achilles,  Bk.  18,  6-14.  Cf.  Schol.  A  (Dindorf)  to  Bk. 
18, 10  and  11,  which  Aristophanes  omitted :  taas  «rel  ovk  ^v  Mvp/uiiSwv  6  TldrpoKkos, 
AoKpbs  yap  ^v  e|  "Oirovvros.  This  is  exactly  Dio's  contention.  He  deduces  not 
only  Achilles'  cowardice,  but  his  identity  with  Patroklos. 


v 


Dio  Chrysostom  as  a  Homeric  Critic.  21 

Ilios  are  plainly  to  be  seen.  Homer  wished  to  conceal  entirely 
the  fact  that  Achilles  had  perished  at  Ilios;  seeing,  however,  that 
this  was  impossible,  he  completely  reversed  the  truth,  making 
Hektor  slain  by  Achilles,  and  his  corpse  to  be  dragged  as  far  as 
the  walls,  and  further  treated  with  shocking  indignities. 

As  Hektor's  tomb,  however,  was  known  and  honored  by 
posterity,  Homer  had  to  resort  to  the  further  deception  of  main- 
taining that  his  body  was  restored  for  a  ransom,  by  the  command 
of  Zeus.  Apollo  and  Aphrodite  also  had  to  be  introduced  as 
keeping  it  untouched  by  corruption  for  a  period  of  several  days. 

The  Homeric  account  of  the  combat  of  Achilles  and  Hektor  is 
now  examined,  sections  106-110.  In  the  first  place,  it  is  laugh- 
able that  Achilles  should  have  been  represented  as  fighting  at 
all  after  the  death  of  Patroklos,  that  is,  as  Dio  claims  to  have 
proved,  after  his  own  death ;  and  that  Thetis  should  have  brought 
from  heaven  armor  fashioned  by  Hephaistos  to  replace  that 
captured  by  Hektor. 

In  the  second  place,  equally  improbable  is  Homer's  representa- 
tion of  Achilles  as  checking  the  Trojans  single  handed,  while  all 
the  rest  of  the  Achaeans,  foolishly  enough,  looked  on  as  though  at 
a  theatrical  spectacle,  and  lent  Achilles  no  aid  whatsoever,  though 
they  had  suffered  so  much  at  Hektor's  hands  as,  in  their  hatred 
and  rage,  to  join  in  maltreating  his  lifeless  body.  Indeed,  Homer 
entirely  ignores  their  existence.1  • 

In  the  third  place,  the  narrative  of  Achilles'  apua-Teia,  in  which, 
at  one  time,  he  fights  with  the  river,  at  another  time  threatens  and 
pursues  Apollo,2  is  very  weak  and  unconvincing.  Especially  so 
is  the  representation  of  Hektor  as,  at  first,  manfully  awaiting 
Achilles  outside  the  wall,  and  heeding  neither  his  father's  nor  his 
mother's  prayers,  but  afterwards  unaccountably  losing  his  courage, 
and  fleeing  in  a  circle  round  the  city  :  and  this,  though  he  was  at 
liberty  to  enter  the  gates,  and  finally  to  escape  Achilles.  Above 
all,  it  is  absurd  that  Achilles,  though  called  the  swiftest  of  mortals, 

1  For  a  close  similarity  of  language  as  well  as  thought,  cf.  Porphyry's  elaborate 
Scholium  to  II.  22,  36 :  &^iov  ^r^creajs,  ira>s,  airSvros  'AxtAAews,  /j.ri$els  iroKefie? 
"EKTopi  ....  MeyaKAeiSrjs  Se  (pr)(ri  ravra  iravTa  irXacrixara  efoai.  Cf,  also  Scholium 
to  22,  205.    Cf.  also  Sengebusch,  Horn.  Diss.,  I,  p.  188. 

2  This  is  a  plain  reminiscence  of  Plato,  Rep.  in,  381  A. 


22  Dio  Chrysostom  as  a  Homeric,  Critic. 

should  have  failed  to  overtake  Hektor  in  this  well-nigh  ludicrous 
pursuit ;  and  that  Athene  should  have  come  forth  from  the  wall 
in  the  likeness  of  Deiphobos,  deceived  Hektor,  and  stolen  away 
his  spear.  All  these  details  of  the  combat,  says  Dio,  are  like 
absurd  dreams.1 

In  sections  111-124  are  summed  up  the  closing  events  of  the 
Trojan  expedition,  as  Dio  maintains  these  to  have  occurred.  This 
is  based  partly  upon  Homeric  details,  separated  from  their  artistic 
setting,  and  palpably  distorted ;  and  partly  upon  events  drawn 
from  the  other  Epics  of  the  Trojan  Cycle.  Having  slain  Achilles, 
Hektor  departed  for  the  city  to  visit  his  parents  and  wife,  and  left 
Paris  in  command  of  the  Trojans.  These  were  encamped  around 
the  Achaeans,  prepared  to  capture  them  as  soon  as  the  day  should 
dawn.  At  this  juncture,  Agamemnon,  with  Nestor,  Odysseus,  and 
Diomede,  held  a  council,2  and  silently  escaped  to  the  Chersonese  in 
the  few  ships  left  them,3  and  with  the  small  portion  of  the  host 
they  could  transport.  Here  they  supported  themselves  by  piracy, 
afraid  to  leave  the  Trojans  still  unreconciled  to  them.  They 
returned  to  the  neighborhood  of  Ilios,  and,  constructing  fortifi- 
cations smaller,  and  higher  up  from  the  sea,  than  the  former  ones, 
waged  war  with  varying  fortune.  The  Trojans,  becoming  dis- 
couraged, took  under  consideration  their  repeated  offers  of  peace, 
and,  despite  Hektor's  strenuous  opposition,  finally  concluded  with 

1  The  foregoing  air  opt  par  a,  with  their  sophistic  ring,  are  merely  outgrowths 
of  Aristotle's  well  known  distinction  between  the  canons  of  artistic  construction 
for  Epic  and  those  for  Dramatic  poetry,  as  set  forth  in  the  Poetics,  ch.  24,  1460a, 
14  fig.,  and  ch.  25,  1460b,  26.  Here,  as  elsewhere,  Dio  accepts  the  data,  but 
rejects  the  conclusions,  of  Aristotle. 

2  Dio  is  here  plainly  using  Bks.  6,  8,  and  9,  of  the  Iliad.  This  distortion  of 
the  sequence  of  events  is  an  important  element  of  sophistic  argument.  It  is  an 
illegitimate  expansion  of  the  Avo-ts  e/c  rod  tccupov,  well  known  in  Homeric  criti- 
cism through  Aristotelian  and  Peripatetic  use.  Among  other  instances  of  its 
employment  by  Dio  is  his  change  of  the  period  during  which  the  Achaeans  had 
to  resort  to  piracy.  Cf.,  for  the  same  thought,  Porphyry's  Scholium  to  Odyssey 
3,  72,  where  he  explains  away  the  charge  that  piracy  was  airpeir-fis.  The  thought 
may  have  been  drawn  originally  from  Thucydides,  Bk.  I,  ch.  v,  \\  1,  2. 

3  Dio  maintains  that  many  more  ships  were  burned  than  merely  that  of 
Protesilaus.  Cf.  the  intimation  in  Porphyry,  Scholium  to  II.  15,  701  ffg. :  5m 
ri  ov  ras  trpwras  vavs  ZUirp7}<rav  ol  Tpwes ;  ....  ££-f)T7),Tcu  5m  iro'iav  alriav  fxovriv 
r^v  TlpccTeaikdov  irapsSooKe  vavv  Kaio/j.4vr]v ;  pr\riov  oi>v  tin  jjdetrdr}  6"0/j.r]pos  e'nre'iv 
4/j.irpricr6ai  riva  tuv  £(H>vtu>v,  /j.^nus  avapZpiav  avrov  tis  dd^rj  KaraytyudlxTKeii/.  .  .  . 


Dio  Chrysostom  as  o,  Homeric  Critic.  23 

them  a  treaty  of  peace.  This,  declares  Dio,  is  the  treaty  that 
Homer  falsely,  and  knowingly,  makes  the  Trojans  to  have  broken. 
By  its  terms,  a  wooden  horse  was  constructed  by  the  Achaeans  as 
a  votive  offering  for  the  temple  of  Athene  of  Ilios.  The  gates 
of  the  city  were  found  too  small  to  admit  it,  and  part  of  the  wall 
was  torn  down.  This  is  the  origin  of  the  ridiculous  story  that  the 
city  was  taken  by  means  of  a  wooden  horse. 

Dio  now  continues  his  argument  into  the  extra-Homeric  field ; 
but  though  this,  as  an  argument,  is  decidedly  the  most  skilful 
portion  of  the  oration,  it  is  not  pertinent  to  our  task,  and  we  shall 
not  follow  it  further. 


II.    AESTHETIC  CRITICISM  OF   HOMER. 

Dio  has  no  criticism  upon  Homer  which  can  properly  be  termed 
scientific.  He  is  an  entire  stranger  to  any  such  system  of  cate- 
gories as  that  to  which  Homer's  language,  figures,  and  metre  are 
reduced  in  the  Stoic  treatise  ascribed  to  Plutarch,  irepl  rov  /3lov 
teal  tt;?  7roir)(T€m  (Ofxr}pov.  In  no  single  oration,  with  one  excep- 
tion, is  there  a  passage  which  distinguishes  the  purely  artistic 
side  from  that  which  concerns  the  purpose  and  value  of  the 
Homeric  poems.  True,  in  Oration  53,  irepl  'Ofirjpov,  §§  5-7,  a 
distinction  is  drawn  between  Homer's  poetic  skill  and  his  moral 
viciousness ; 1  but  its  purpose  is  merely  to  show  the  reasons  for 
the  world-wide  fame  of  the  Homeric  poems.  Nor  is  such  a 
passage  as  Oration  55,  irepl  'Ofirjpov  ical  ^coicpaTovs,  §§  9-11, 
to  be  cited  as  an  instance  of  aesthetic  criticism.  It  enumerates 
at  length  those  objects  of  nature,  animate  and  inanimate,  which 
supplied  Homer  with  his  wealth  of  similes  and  comparisons ;  but 
its  sole  purpose  is  to  prove  that  Homer,  no  less  than  Socrates, 
drew  his  similes  largely  from  humble  spheres,  and  not  alone  from 
the  elevated,  as  the  foolish  think.2 


1  Plato  is  mentioned  as  the  source,  and  the  passage  is  manifestly  based  upon 
the  Republic,  in,  398  A,  ffg. 

2  The  passage  is  strongly  Cynic  in  tone.  It  is  manifestly  a  reminiscence  of 
the  Phaedrus,  229  D.  For  a  similar  recapitulation  of  the  spheres  of  Homer's 
similes,  cf.  pseudo  Plutarch,  irepl  rov  &iov  k.  t.  a.,  1124  A-1128  C. 


24  Dio  Chrysostom  as  a  Homeric  Critic. 

Oration  12,  ^OXviattlkos  t)  irepl  rrj?  7rp(orr)<;  rov  deov  evvoias, 
must,  to  some  extent,  be  considered  an  exception  to  the  principle 
just  laid  down.  Even  in  this,  however,  as  the  title  shows,  there 
is  distinct  ethical  connotation,  and  the  frame-work  is  highly 
sophistic,  there  being  a  speech  within  a  speech. 

A  brief  review  .of  the  salient  features  of  the  oration  is  necessary. 
Pheidias  is  defending  himself  upon  the  charge  of  impiety,  brought 
by  the  Athenians  for  his  anthropomorphic  representation  of  the 
Deity.  With  the  exclusively  moral  side  of  the  defence,  §§  55-61, 
inclusive,  we  are  not  here  concerned ;  though  Pheidias'  claim  to 
have  followed  merely  popular  belief  and  poetic  representation,  is 
of  extreme  value  as  throwing  light  upon  the  source  for  the 
fundamental  conception  of  the  oration.  It  is  distinctively  Aris- 
totelian (compare  the  Poetics,  ch.  24,  1460b,  35  %.). 

But,  continues  Dio,  as  Homer  is  the  traditional  source  for  the 
popular  beliefs  concerning  the  gods,  he  is,  at  the  same  time,  chief 
of  all  poets.  Thus,  on  both  scores,  Pheidias  throws  upon  him 
the  blame,  if  blame  there  be.  The  assertion,  however,  that  he 
had  imitated  Homer,  must  be  modified  :  \eyco  Se  7rpo?  to  hvvarov 
•W79  ifjLovrov  Tkyyy)<$.  Thus  the  transition  is  made  to  the  aesthetic 
ground. 

Of  speech  in  general,  §§  64,  65,  in  all  its  diverse  kinds,  and 
expressive  of  all  shades  of  thought,  man  has  no  lack.  Especially 
is  this  true  in  the  realm  of  poetry ;  and  most  especially  is  it  true 
of  Homer,  who  used  all  dialects,  and  all  styles,  and  borrowed 
from  every  phase  of  nature  and  human  activity.  Such  freedom  is 
utterly  beyond  the  sculptor's  art — to  yeipovaKTiicbv  /cat  BrjfjbLovpyt,- 
kov.  This  demands,  first  of  all,  solid  and  enduring  material  upon 
which  to  work ;  and  it  is  limited  to  the  definite,  fixed,  and 
unchanging  presentation  of  the  original  concept.  On  the  con- 
trary, all  forms  and  manifestations,  all  motion  and  rest,  are  the 
poet's  to  use  as  he  pleases.  He  may  pour  forth  his  verse  with  a 
mighty  rush,  as  from  some  overflowing  fountain-head,  while  his 
idea  is  still  hot  within  him ;  the  sculptor  must  labor  slowly  and 
painfully,  his  most  difficult  task  of  all  being  to  keep  unchanged 
the  concept  with  which  he  began.  Thus  it  logically  follows  that 
sculpture  must  appeal  to  the  sight,  the  most  exacting  and  least 
easily  beguiled   of  the  senses;   and    must  hence  be  at  a  grave 


Dio  Chrysostom  as  a  Homeric  Critic.  25 

disadvantage  as  compared  with   poetry,  which  appealing  to  the 
ear,  has  the  more  abundant  opportunity  to  deceive  the  hearer. 

Furthermore,  sculpture  has  its  measurements  of  size  and  pro- 
portion, clearly  defined,  and  to  be  closely  adhered  to ;  but  Homer 
could  say  of  the  magnitude  of  Eris  (II.  4,  443) : 

ovpavS  e(TTr)pit~€  Kaprj  teal  eVl  %6ovl  ftaivei. 

Such  freedom  of  the  poet's  art  finds  its  most  complete  applica- 
tion in  Homer's  delineation  of  Zeus,  who  is  pictured,  now  as 
gentle  and  mild,  again  as  terrible  and  warlike,  encouraging  to 
strife  and  war.  Such  two-fold  power  of  representation  is  entirely 
absent  from  sculpture  :  it  can  represent  only  the  dignity  of  repose, 
such  as  is  shown  in  the  spirit  of  the  benignant  epithets  applied 
by  men  to  Zeus.1  It  was  this  phase  of  Zeus  that  he  portrayed, 
says  Pheidias,  so  far  as  he  could.  As  for  the  Homeric  Zeus  of 
the  warlike  characteristics,  this  was  not  to  be  imitated  though 
his  art.  The  external  effects  of  Zeus'  anger,  as  pictured  by 
Homer,  were  easy  to  tell;  but,  on  many  scores,  impossible  for 
Pheidias  to  represent,  though  he  had  portrayed  the  deity  as  the 
central  figure,  calm  in  his  power  amid  all  this  convulsion  of 
the  elements. 

The  entire  speech  of  Pheidias,  §§  49-83,  Hagen,  pp.  70-72, 
considers  to  be  of  Pergamene  origin,  and  to  set  forth  Pergamene 
doctrines  of  criticism,  From  the  high  position  which  Pheidias 
held  in  the  esteem  of  that  school,  from  the  existence  of  certain 
passages  in  Quintilian  which  show  a  kinship  in  thought  to  Dio, 
and  from  Quintilian's  acknowledged  debt  to  the  Pergamenes, 
Hagen  deduces  Dio's  employment  of  Pergamene  sources.  With 
this  contention,  I  must  take  issue. 

In  the  first  place,  the  passage  cited  by  Hagen  from  Quintilian — 
Inst.  Or.  xu,  10,  7-9 — is  fundamentally  different  from  Oration 
12.     Quintilian    is    here   treating  of  the  relative  merits  of  the 

1  Then  follows  a  list  of  ovd/j-ara  irrieera.  For  identically  the  same,  cf.  Or.  1, 
\\  39-41.  They  are  probably  to  be  referred  to  the  Peripatetic  treatise,  irspl  kJ<t/aou, 
ch.  7.  This,  and  not  Pliny,  N.  H.  35,  96  (as  suggested  by  Hagen,  p.  71)  is  Dio's 
source.  It  is  more  than  probable  that  it  served  Pliny  as  source,  also.  Dio's  debt 
to  Latin  sources  is  very  small .  ' 


26  Dio  Chrysostom  as  a  Hom,erie  Critic. 

sculptors.  It  is  true  that  the  central  thought  of  Pergamene 
criticism  was  the  illustration  of  literary  art  from  the  formative, 
as  is  seen  from  Dionysius  of.  Halicarnassus,  and  from  Quintilian; 
but  this  criticism  invariably  sought  parallels  and  resemblances 
between  the  arts,  and  did  not  accentuate  the  differences.  It  is  in 
this  respect  that  Dio's  criticism  in  Oration  12  differs  fundamentally 
from  all  that  we  know  of  Pergamene  criticism.  Dio's  avowed 
purpose  is  to  outline  the  limitations  of  the  glyptic  art,  as  compared 
with  the  universal  freedom  of  the  poetic.  Still  another  modifica- 
tion of  Pergamene  criticism  must  be  added :  not  only  did  that  school 
seek  to  trace  resemblances,  and  not  differences,  between  literature 
and  art,  but  such  comparison  set  more  and  more  toward  one 
department,  and  that  of  prose,  viz.,  oratory.  This  was  the  logical 
result  of  the  cultivation  of  Asianic  oratory  at  Pergamos ;  and 
while  the  drama,  from  its  element  of  action,  might  have  claimed  a 
share  of  attention,  yet  comparisons  with  poetry  in  general,  and 
Epic  poetry  in  especial,  were  not  representative  of  the  school. 
Thus,  in  the  two  most  essential  points,  we  see  that  Dio  did  not 
follow  Pergamene  lines. 

It  is  when  we  come  to  consider  Aristotle's  theory  of  the  arts, 
with  his  admission  of  differences  on  the  one  hand  and  resemblances 
on  the  other,  that  we  find  the  suggestion  which  formed  Dio's 
working  basis  for  Oration  12.  Chapter  I  of  the  Poetics,  while 
outlining  /At^crt?  as  the  common  principle  of  all  arts,  distin- 
guishes clearly  between  them  in  the  means,  the  objects,  and  the 
manner  (§  3).  Of  these  three,  we  are  concerned  only  with  the 
first :  (§  4)  cbcTTrep  yap  teal  xpwfxaai  koX  a^tj/juaat,  7ro\\a  fiifiovv- 
rai  rives  airuKa^ovTe^  (ol  /j,ev  Blcl  re^vr)?  ol  8e  Sea  o-vvrjOela?) 
erepou  Se  Sia  rf}<;  <fxovr}<;,  ovray  k.  t.  \.  And  the  conclusion  of  the 
chapter  (§  10)  can  be  closely  paralleled  from  Dio  :  ravras  /juev  ovv 
\eya>  ra<;  Siafyopas  rwv  reyywv,  iv  oh  irotovvrai  rrjv  /jll/jltjo-lv. 

As  regards  the  distinction  drawn  between  the  senses  to  which 
the  formative  art,  and  those  to  which  the  poetic,  appeals,  it  is 
probable  that  Dio  was  here  elaborating  a  Peripatetic  doctrine. 
Traces  of  this  appear  not  only  in  the  Poetics,  ch.  I,  §  4  (already 
quoted),  but  more  completely  in  the  Problemata,  IO,  27,  where 
the  distinction  between  the  senses  of  sight  and  hearing  is  drawn  in 
the  matter  of  the  Kivqcris  produced  by  each,  and  the  question  is 


< 
Dio  Chrysostom  as  a  Homeric  Critic.  27 

asked,  8id  rt  to  clkovcttov  fiovov  r)dos  €%€i  tcov  aladrjrcbv.  So, 
too,  in  Pol.  v,  5,  1340a,  28,  the  question  is  discussed  as  to  how 
far  moral  qualities  may  be  said  to  belong  to  rd  dirrd  kol  rd 
yevcrrd,  as  compared  with  rd  opard,  the  latter  being  regarded 
as  inferior  in  this  respect.  Again,  Problemata,  I®,  29,  glances  at 
the  question  Scd  tl  ol  pvOfjuol  kol  rd  /j,i\r)  (fxovr)  ovaa  rjOeaiv 
eoiKev. 

Dio's  point  respecting  the  definite  limitation  imposed  upon 
sculpture  rests  clearly  upon  Aristotelian  basis.  Cf.  the  Poetics, 
ch.  vir,  §  4,  where  Aristotle  discusses  the  analogy  between  the 
length  of  a  plot  and  the  size  of  an  artistic  production. 

Aristotelian  influence  is  especially  evident  in  the  passage  (Or. 
12,  §§  64,  65)  concerning  Homer's  poetic  power.  The  underlying 
thought  is  precisely  that  of  the  Poetics,  that  poetry  is  a  form  of 
imitation.1  Homer's  imitation  of  all  the  sounds  of  nature,  animate 
and  inanimate,  as  well  as  of  the  products  of  human  art,  is,  accord- 
ing to  Dio,  only  one  phase  of  his  great  power  of  onomatopoeia.2 

Besides  this  power,  Dio  emphasizes  Homer's  use  and  combina- 
tion of  words  and  dialects  already  existent,  and  his  adaptation 
of  words  to  his  rhythm.  Dio's  ascription  of  these  three  forms  of 
activity  to  Homer  is  merely  the  elaboration  of  the  well-known 
passage  of  the  Poetics,  ch.  xxi,  §  2  :  dirav  Be  ovofxa  iariv  rj 
tcvptov  rj  yXcorra  rj  [xeTafyopd  rj  k6(T/ao<;  i)  7r67roir}fjuivov  rj  eVe/CTe- 
ra/jbivov  rj  v^>rjpr]fjbevov  rj  i^rjWayfjLevov. 


^h.  i,  §  2;  ch.  IV,  §  2;  ch.  vm,  \  4;  ch.  xv,  §  8;  ch.  xxin,  \  1  :  ch.  xxiv, 
\  7 ;  ch.  xxv,  I  2 ;  ch.  xxvi,  g  6. 

8  Here,  as  well  as  in  Or.  53,  §  5  {ir*p\  'O/m-fipov  koI  ^ooKpdrovs)  Dio  gives  the 
subject  a  Platonic  coloring.  Both  passages  are,  undoubtedly,  reminiscences  of 
the  Republic,  398  A.  Dio's  similes  in  the  passage  under  consideration  are  also 
of  marked  Platonic  flavor,  being  borrowed  from  the  practical  handicrafts,  rather 
than  from  the  fine  arts.  Cf.  66,  and  68.  These  show  a  strong  non-Pergamene 
influence  at  work  upon  the  passage.  As  against  the  first  simile  cited,  on  the 
contrary,  may  be  given  an  example  of  the  purely  Pergamene  simile,  Dion.  Hal. 
Iudicium  de  Demosthene,  ch.  41,  oSrus  Kipvavrau  Kaddirep  iv  rfj  twypa<pla.  ra 
fiiy^ata. 


28  Dio  Chrysostom  as  a  Homeric  Critic. 

III.    ETHICAL   CRITICISM   OF   HOMER. 
A.   Homer's  Personality. 

The  presentation  of  Homer's  personal  side  by  an  author  of 
Dio's  unoriginal  character  can  hardly  be  more  than  a  repetition 
of  the  traditions  which  had  found  current  acceptance  in  his  day. 
It  is  interesting,  however,  to  see  Dio's  thorough-going  conception 
of  the  poet's  life  as  a  means  to  ethical  teaching.  Given  Homer 
the  man, — and  Dio  never  once  betrays  the  least  doubt  upon  this 
point, — the  next  step  was  to  ascribe  to  him  the  deliberate  choice 
of  a  certain  fixed  course  of  life;  and  the  moral  lessons  drawn 
from  this  shade  imperceptibly,  in  the  Orations  upon  Homer  (53 
and  55)  into  the  moral  lessons  to  be  drawn  from  his  poems. 
These  lessons,  it  is  hardly  necessary  to  say,  are  little  more  than 
Cynic  and  Stoic  commonplaces. 

In  Oration  53,  Homer's  life  of  self-denial,  poverty,  and  wander- 
ing is  extravagantly  praised.  These  traits  are  touched  upon  in 
Oration  55,  and  in  Oration  47,  where  the  course  of  philosophers 
like  Zeno,  Chrysippus,  Cleanthes,  Pythagoras,  and  of  heroes  like 
Heracles,  is  defended  by  the  example  and  teaching  of  Homer. 
So  far  as  was  possible  from  the  difference  of  the  times  in  which 
they  lived,  the  traits  and  lives  of  Homer  and  Socrates  were, 
according  to  Dio,  closely  parallel,  the  main  point  of  similarity 
being  the  entire  subordination  of  personality  by  these  two  men. 
Indeed,  in  this  point,  Dio  thinks  Socrates  surpassed  even  Homer, 
for  he  left  not  a  word  written. 

B.   Homer  as  the  Conscious  Ethical  Teacher. 

The  transition  from  the  lives  of  Homer  and  Socrates  to  their 
activity  as  teachers  of  morality,  is  thus  made  easy.  In  Homer's 
ethical  teaching,  Dio  assigns  the  most  important  place  of  all  to 
the  principle  of  the  icaipbs  ical  aicaipla,  in  the  light  of  which  all 
individual  actions  are  to  be  judged.  The  characters  of  Nestor 
and  Odysseus  (Or.  55)  are  to  teach  not  merely  ^povrfat^  ical 
o-Tparrjyia  ical  fjuavTLKrj,  but  also,  in  addition  to  these,  icaipbs  ical 


Dio  Chrysostom  as  a  Homeric  Critic.  29 

atcaipia.  Oration  71,  irepl  (j)i\oa6(f>ov,  emphasizes  this  as  the 
basis  of  all  ethical,  even  of  all  artistic,  considerations.  There  is, 
according  to  Dio,  a  yet  higher  stage  than  the  Jack-at-all-trades 
character  of  Hippias  of  Elis1  and  of  Odysseus,2  to  which  the  real- 
philosopher  must  attain.  He  must  be  guided  by  "  the  eternal 
fitness  of  things.'1  The  lesson  is  Homer's,  conveyed  through  the 
fate  of  many  a  luckless  wight  who  met  untimely  end  by  attempt- 
ing things  to  which  he  was  unequal.  In  one  special  instance, 
Dio  emphasizes  Homer's  discrimination  between  the  artistic  and 
the  ethical.  It  is  contained  in  the  famous  lines  concerning  the 
ship-builder  (II.  5,  59),— 

o<?  fcal  'A\ei;dv8p(0  refcrr/varo  vrja?  itaas, 
ap^eKCLKOV^. 

With  the  preeminence  thus  given  to  Homer's  ethical  side,  it  is 
not  surprising  that  Dio  represents  Homer  as  everywhere  moraliz- 
ing his  song.  In  Oration  55,  §§  11-21,  inclusive,  occurs  the 
passage  in  which  he  sets  forth  most  directly  this  conception  of 
Homer.  The  principle  is  further  illustrated  by  a  rapid  review 
of  some  of  Homer's  personages,  which  had  for  centuries  served 
both  Stoics  and  Cynics  as  lay  figures  upon  which  to  hang  certain 
moral  lessons.  Dolon,  with  his  cupidity,  his  abject  terror  when 
captured,  his  eagerness  in  volunteering  information  to  his  captors,3 
is  nothing  more  than  a  picture  of  SeiXeua  kcl\  <j>iXo8o^la,  Pandaros, 
violating  the  truce  in   hopes  of  reward,  childishly  cursing  and 

1  This  is  a  reminiscence  of  the  pseudo-Platonic  Hippias  Maior,  368  bc. 

2  Dio's  exposition  (£$  5-9)  of  Odysseus'  versatility  in  handicrafts  is  ascribed 
by  E.  Weber,  Leipz.Stud.,  vol.  10,  pp.  227,  8,  to  Antisthenes  as  source,  inasmuch 
as  he  deems  it  to  satisfy  completely  all  the  demands  of  Antisthenes'  favorite 
epithet  for  Odysseus,  iroKvrpoiros.  Cf.  Porphyry,  Schol.  to  Od.  1,  2.  R.  Weber, 
on  the  contrary,  Leipz.  Stud.,  vol.  11,  pp.  141-3,  sees  in  the  passage  decided  remi- 
niscences of  what  Chrysippus  the  Stoic  called  the  avro5taKot/\a  or  avrovpyia  of 
Odysseus.  Odysseus  was  a  patron  saint  of  both  schools  of  philosophy,  and  there 
can  be  no  inconsistency  in  allowing  both  contentions.  It  is  remarkable  that  Dio 
should  here  place  Odysseus  on  any  plane  of  philosophy  lower  than  the  very 
highest.  Everywhere  else  he  accords  him  a  place  as  the  embodiment  of  all  true 
philosophy. 

3  For  precisely  the  same  tone,  cf.  Porphyry,  Schol.  to  II.  10,  413,  437; 
Dindorf,  Schol.  A  to  II.  10,  409.— E.  Norden,  Fleck.  Jarhb.,  vol.  19  (1893), 
pp.  373-385,  ascribes  the  passage  to  a  treatise  of  Antisthenes,  irepl  Karaa-KStrov. 


30  Dio  Chrysostom  as  a  Homeric  Critic. 

threatening  his  shafts,  and  dying  a  shameful  death,  singularly 
appropriate  in  view  of  his  wanton  perjury,1  is  the  complete  type 
of  ScopoSoKia  Kol  acrifteia  icaX  to  ^vpnrav  dcjypoavvrj.  Asios,  the 
son  of  Hyrtakos,  disobeying  the  strict  command  of  Polydamas, 
crossing  the  moat  with  his  chariot,  and  meeting  his  end  through 
this  very  act,  is  but  a  picture  of  aireiOeia  koi  a\a%6v€ia.2 

On  the  other  hand,  when  Homer  tells  of  Nestor's  endeavor 
to  reconcile  Agamemnon  and  Achilles,  and  of  the  heavy  penal- 
ties3 which  he  afterward  inflicted  upon  Agamemnon;  when  he 
tells  of  Odysseus'  rectifying  Agamemnon's  well-nigh  fatal  mis- 
take in  testing  the  spirit  of  the  host,  he  is  teaching  (ppovrjcn? 
teal  GTpaT7)<yLa  ical  /xavriKr),  and,  underlying  all,  /catpbs  koX 
GLKaipia. 

Not  only  does  Dio  ascribe  to  Homer  a  system  of  teaching 
through  object  lessons,  but  he  also  draws  upon  the  poet  for  the 
refutation  of  certain  erroneous  popular  beliefs  concerning  poverty 
and  wealth.  Of  these  beliefs  Dio  regards  Euripides  as  the  chief 
exponent.  They  are  primarily  two :  first,  that  poverty  incapaci- 
tates men  for  the  practice  of  hospitality,  and,  second,  that  the 
possession  of  wealth  is  the  means  to  the  highest  good,  viz.,  to 
hovvcu  gevois.  In  Oration  7  (Eu/SoiVco?),  §§  98-102,  is  Dio's  most 
elaborate  homily  upon  the  virtues  of  the  poor  and  humble.  He 
maintains  that  the  poor  are  more  generous  and  hospitable  than 
the  wealthy,  and  finds  his  position  completely  substantiated  by 
Homeric  teaching.  Eumaeos,  the  swineherd,  exhibits  toward 
the  disguised  Odysseus  ali  those  virtues  of  generosity  and  hos- 
pitality in  which  Penelope  and  even  Telemachos  were  so  sadly 
deficient. 


1  Cf.  also  Dio,  Or.  55,  \  21.  For  the  character  of  Pandaros,  see  Porphyry, 
Schol.  to  II.  4,  88,  where  Aristotle  is  named  as  source.  Cf.  also  Porphyry  to  II. 
5,  290,  1,  and  Dindorf,  Schol.  B  to  5,  291. 

2  The  language,  as  well  as  subject  matter,  of  Porphyry,  Schol.  to  II.  12,  110, 
shows  striking  similarity  to  Dio's.  It  is  more  than  probable  that  both  drew 
from  some  Stoic  treatise. 

3  These  two  lines  of  Nestor's  activity  are  elaborated  by  Dio  in  Or.  57,  NeVrwp, 
and  Or.  56,  'Ay ape fivwu  %  wepl  &a<ri\e(as,  respectively.  The  latter  takes  as  its 
text  the  limitation  of  the  king's  absolute  power. — In  contrast  with  the  moral 
side  here  brought  out,  Oration  2,  \\  20-23,  ascribes  the  success  of  Odysseus 
and  Nestor  to  their  skill  in  public  speaking.  Cf.  Porphyry,  Schol.  to  II.  2, 
370  ffg. 


Dio  Chrysostom  as  a  Homeric  Critic.  31 

Nor  can  the  treatment  Odysseus  received  at  the  hands  of  the 
Phaeacions  be  regarded  as  generous,  or  at  all  in  accordance  with 
their  great  wealth  and  abundant  means  of  aiding  him.1 

The  falsity  of  the  second  popular  contention  is  proved  by  a 
consideration  of  the  character  of  the  guests  who  claim  hospitality 
from  the  wealthy.  Dio  illustrates  this  from  Homer  by  the  dis- 
astrous results  brought  upon  Menelaos  by  the  fact  that  he  alone 
of  the  Lacedaemonians  was  able  to  entertain  Alexandros  (Paris) 
as  a  guest. 

Dio  finds  that  Homer  emphasizes  the  lesson  of  proper  conduct, 
not  only  for  the  individual,  but  for  the  nation.  The  fate  of  Troy, 
the  rich  and  populous,  at  the  hands  of  a  citizen  of  the  insignificant 
Ithaca,  serves  as  a  warning  to  the  men  of  Tarsos  (Or.  53). 
Homer  (§§  19-23)  has,  like  Archilochos  (§§  17,  18),  for  the 
truly  great  city,  a  standard  independent  of  material  wealth  and 
advantages.     These  in  nowise  availed  Troy. 

So  much  for  the  subject  matter  of  Homer's  teachings.  Dio 
also  finds  a  twofold  method  of  teaching  employed  by  Homer,  Bid 
re  fjuvdwv  teal  iaTop[a<;.  We  have  seen  his  treatment  of  the  latter 
in  the  concrete  personages  and  events,  which,  even  if  they  did  not 
exist,  might  yet  have  done  so  by  all  the  laws  of  probability.  The 
former,  however,  Dio  neglects  to  consider,  except  in  the  most 
general  fashion, — a  neglect  which  is  significant  as  showing  his 
use  of  the  Aristotelian  Xvcrcs  i/c  rod  irpoadyirov  in  the  ethical 
sphere.  The  few  lessons  Dio  finds  in  the  fivOoc  of  Homer  are 
dreary  commonplaces  and  are  confined  to  Cynic  and  Sophistic 
citations  from  the  'AXklvov  airoXoyoc. 

The  conscious  ethical  lessons  thus  far  ascribed  by  Dio  to 
Homer  apply  merely  to  the  ordinary  run  of  humanity.  We  come 
now  to  Dio's  conception  of  Homer  as  the  teacher  of  the  nature 

1  This  intermixture  of  the  Sophistic  and  the  Cynic  is  noteworthy.  The 
personages  are  all  drawn  from  the  Odyssey,  the  Karoirrpov  of  human  life,  accord- 
ing to  Antisthenes.  Cf.  Porphyry  to  Od.  1.1.  To  the  Cynic,  Eumaeos  was  the 
type  of  admirable  man.  Cf.  Dio,  Or.  15,  \  13.  Penelope  and  Telemachos,  on 
the  contrary,  were  the  immaculates  who  had  served  as  fair  marks  for  generations 
of  Sophists.  Cf.  Porphyry,  Schol.  to  Od.  1,  o32 ;  and  16,  188.  It  is  probable  that 
Dio's  source  for  the  passage  under  consideration  was  Antisthenes'  nepl  UrjueXS-n-ns 
ical  'EAcvrjS,  and  irepl  '08v<t<t4cds  iced  Tf)Xe  ixaxov  •      Cf.  Diog.  Laert.  1,  6. 


32  Dio  Chrysostom  as  a  Homeric,  Critic. 

of  Zeus,  and,  closely  related  to  this,  of  the  true  king.  Dio 
regards  these  (Or.  53,  §§  11,  12)  as  but  phases  of  the  same  theme, 
for  he  who  would  be  the  real  king  must  imitate  the  kindly  and 
beneficent  Zeus.  Homer's  ever-recurring  epithets  for  the  true 
king  are  merely  plays  upon  this  idea :  Au  \xt\tlv  araXavros, 
BwTp€(j)7]q,  Sticpikos,  and  for  Minos,1  especially,  Ato?  fieyaXov 
oapiarrj^  and  ofjLtXrjrr)?.  Cf.  also  Or.  4  (Trepl  (SaaCkeLas),  §§  38- 
42;  Or.  1,  §  37.  So  in  Or.  1,  §§  11-15,  Dio  identifies  the  real 
king  with  Homer's  king,  who  derives  from  Zeus  his  title  to  rule.2 
Zeus'  most  significant  trait  is  that  he  does  not  disdain  to  be  called 
the  father  of  men  as  well  as  gods ;  the  real  king  must  consider 
himself  in  a  like,  paternal  relation  to  his  subjects.  All  the 
reciprocal  duties  of  this  relation  are  sharply  contrasted  with 
the  vices  and  punishment  of  the  tyrant  in  a  lengthy  exegesis, 
Or.  2,  §§  66-78,  inclusive,  the  text  taken  being  Homer's  famous 
likening  of  Agamemnon  to  the  bull,  II.  2,  480-483.3 

Thus  far  we  have  seen  the  general  characteristics  of  the  real 
king ;  we  now  turn  to  Dio's  demands  for  their  application  to  the 
practical  affairs  of  life.  This  is  the  central  theme  of  Oration  2, 
irepl  j3a<Ti\eia<;.  It  is  cast  in  the  form  of  a  dialogue  between 
Philip  of  Macedon  and  his  stripling  son,  Alexander.  The  dra- 
matic effect  is  heightened  by  Alexander's  bearing  the  chief  part. 
Hence,  as  befits  the  ethos  of  the  speaker,  a  warlike  and  aristocratic 
tone  pervades  the  whole  oration.4  It  is,  therefore,  distinctively 
Stoic,5  and  not   Cynic;   for  at  no  stage  did  Cynicism  lay  stress 

Pseudo-Plutarch,  trepl  rod  fiiov  k.  t.  A.  (a  Stoic  treatise)  is  much  similar  in 
tone  to  this  point  of  Dio,  though  without  the  6thos  of  the  Cynic  speaker, 
Diogenes.  The  exegesis  of  the  epithets  for  Minos  given  above  is  undoubtedly 
based  upon  pseudo-Plato,  Minos,  319  de. 

«Cf.  11.  2,  205,  206,  and  Porphyry,  Schol.  to  II.  1,  279. 

3  R.  Weber,  Leipz.  Stud.,  vol.  11,  p.  166,  thinks  Dio's  source  here  to  have  been 
the  same  which  served  the  compiler  of  the  Stoic  Corpus  Allegoriarum.  This 
corpus,  in  its  turn,  was  drawn  upon  by  Porphyry,  Schol.  to  11.  2,  482;  and  by 
pseudo-Plutarch,  ircpl  rod  &lov  k.  t.  a.,  1254  ab. 

4  Von  Arnim,  Leben  u.  s.  w.  des  Dio  von  Prusa,  thinks  the  oration  was  delivered 
by  Dio  before  Trajan  in  104  a.  d.,  on  the  eve  of  the  Second  Dacian  War.  His 
argument  is  strong  and  convincing. 

5Cf.  R.  Weber,  Leipz.  Stud.,  vol.  11,  pp.  157-168,  177,  179.  He  maintains 
that  Dio  drew  fxhaustively  upon  Dioscurides,  who  also  served  as  source  for 
Athenaeus,  and  the  author  of  the  pseudo-Plutarchean,  irepi  rov  plov,  k.  t.  a. 


Bio  Chrysostom  as  a  Homeric  Critic.  33 

upon  the  warlike  virtues,  or  admit  war  at  all,  in  its  strenuous 
advocacy  of  a  return  to  nature  as  the  solution  of  man's  evils. 
Alexander  of  Macedon  is,  therefore,  of  all  personages,  a  non- 
Cynic  expounder  of  Homer.  Indeed,  in  later  philosophy,  it_had 
become  a  favorite  rhetorical  device  to  pit  him  against  Diogenes. 

Oration  2  is  little  more  than  a  compilation  of  Stoic  common- 
places. Homeric  poetry  is  peculiarly  fitted  for  the  king,  in 
marked  contrast  to  that  of  Hesiod,  the  poet  of  artisans  and 
laborers.  Homer  contains  all  directions  for  the  king's  mode  of 
life.  According  to  him,  the  king  must  possess  the  power  of  public 
speaking ;  he  must  hear  only  such  music  as  will  be  an  incentive 
to  martial  ardor ;  he  must  see  and  take  part  only  in  the  war- 
dance  ;  he  must  not  tolerate  any  such  invocations  to  the  gods  as 
the  Attic  skolia ;  his  abode  must  show  no  wanton  nor  effeminate 
luxury  in  its  appointments ;  his  arms  must  be  at  hand  for  instant 
use ;  his  food  must  be  plain  and  simple,  even  meagre ;  his  dress 
must  be  merely  serviceable,  and  distinguished  from  that  of  the 
subject  only  in  so  far  as  to  denote  the  king's  rank.  In  short, 
Homer  emphasizes  the  two  fundamental  virtues  for  the  king, 
dvhpeia  koX  hiKcuoavvT],  as  shown  in  his  well  known  description 
of  Agamemnon  (II.  3,  179), 

a/jL<f>OT€pov,  ftao-tXevs  T  ayaObs  /cparepos  T  al%fjLr)T7]$. 


LIFE. 

Walter  Alexander  Montgomery  was  born  in  Warrenton,  North 
Carolina,  August  3,  1872.  His  early  training  was  received  in  the 
schools  of  his  native  town.  In  1888,  he  entered  Wake  Forest  College, 
North  Carolina,  where  he  remained  until  1890.  In  October  of  that 
year,  he  entered  the  Johns  Hopkins  University,  and  received  the 
degree  of  Bachelor  of  Arts  in  June,  1892.  In  1892-3,  he  pursued 
graduate  studies  in  Greek,  Latin,  and  Sanskrit,  at  the  same  institu- 
tion. From  1893  to  1895,  he  taught  in  the  High  Schools  of  Asheville, 
N.  C,  and  Eufaula,  Ala.  From  October,  1895,  he  attended  the 
Seminaries  in  Greek  and  Latin  at  the  Johns  Hopkins  University 
until  February,  1899,  when  he  received  the  degree  of  Doctor  of 
Philosophy.  He  held  Hopkins  Scholarships  during  1890-1,  1891-2, 
1896-7 ;  and  Honorary  Hopkins  Scholarships  during  1892-3,  1895-6, 
1897-8. 

His  subjects  for  the  degree  of  Doctor  of  Philosophy  were  Greek, 
Latin,  and  the  History  of  Philosophy. 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 


AN  INITIAL  FINE  OP  25  CENTS 

WILL  BE  ASSESSED  FOR  FAILURE  TO  RETURN 
THIS  BOOK  ON  THE  DATE  DUE.  THE  PENALTY 
WILL  INCREASE  TO  SO  CENTS  ON  THE  FOURTH 
DAY  AND  TO  $1.00  ON  THE  SEVENTH  DAY 
OVERDUE. 


MM!     &&     ifrf 

MAY    23  1944 

LD  21-10m-5, '43 (6061s) 

YC  00283 


* 


W 


m 


